Ram Niwas Jangid V. Union of India through Secretary to govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi and The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi

CW/9683/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Ram Niwas Jangid, a former Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, who faced disciplinary proceedings shortly before his retirement in 2004, based on allegations from 1998. The proceedings were delayed, and despite court directions in 2015 to conclude the enquiry, no action was taken by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner, having received a provisional pension, challenged the prolonged uncertainty over the disciplinary proceedings, leading to the High Court's decision to close the proceedings due to inaction and the petitioner's advanced age.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700909 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K K BISSA
• Assessee Lawyers: J K KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Charge Memorandum; Disciplinary Authority; Enquiry officer; Malafide Motive; Provisional Pension; Superannuated
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9683/2017 Ram Niwas Jangid son of Shri Mohan Lal Jangid, aged about 72 years, resident of 2-Ka-3, Pawanpuri, Bikaner, last employed on the post of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. ----petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. J.K. Kaushik Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 30/07/2018 1. The appellant, writ petitioner, working as a Joint Commissioner, Income Tax superannuated from service on 31.03.2004. Concededly, a provisional pension equal to 100% of the pension has been sanctioned to him. A few months prior to his superannuation he was served a charge memorandum 17.11.2003, alleging that while functioning as Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax during financial year 1998-99, he passed two contradictory orders under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, which reflected a malafide motive. 2. Writ petitioner’s reply not being found to be satisfactory an enquiry officer was appointed to record evidence and furnish a (2 of 3) [CWP-9683/2017] report. Noting that the enquiry was not conducted as per Rules, the disciplinary authority remitted the matter to the enquiry officer with the direction to conduct a proper enquiry. 3. The writ petitioner filed an Original Application challenging further enquiry. 4. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner. 5. The Department filed a writ petition in this Court against the order of the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 12.08.2015 directing that the disciplinary authority would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order after examining the record of the enquiry. The writ petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit his comments to the report of enquiry on or before 18.09.2015. The disciplinary authority was granted two months’ time thereafter to pass the necessary order. 6. Instant writ petition has been filed pointing out that till date the disciplinary authority has passed no order. 7. The reply brings out the fact that till date the disciplinary authority has not passed any order in terms of the judgment dated 12.08.2015. 9. In our opinion, curtains need to be brought down for the reason that the charge memorandum dated 17.11.2003 was issued a few months prior to writ petitioner’s retirement and pertained to an incident which took place in the year 1998. The appellant attained the age of 60 years in the year 2004. He is 74 years old. The sword of damocles hanging over his head for 15 years. 10. As noticed above, the provisional pension sanctioned is equal to 100%, which the writ petitioner has received. Since the (3 of 3) [CWP-9683/2017] respondent did not complete the enquiry within the time granted by this Court in the year 2015, we declare the proceedings emanating from the charge memorandum dated 17.11.2003 to be closed. 11. Writ petition disposed of declaring as above. (DINESH MEHTA),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ Arun/PS 40 "